Thanks for the clarification, Richard. Maybe we can start eliminating some of the confusion surrounding this topic and make some real progress. Keep up the awesome work!!

I don't endorse a flyover based on eyewitness reports, however I do see what appear to be contradictions in the Black Box data vs. the official story.

Either the FDR data released by the NTSB (a government agency) supports or contradicts the official story. Either the animation released by NTSB based on the FDR for Flight 77 supports or contradicts the official story. Which is it?
I was just watching the three video clips on this page and looking at the information. If this information is incorrect then someone please explain to me WHY.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

If we feel that the pilots and aviation professionals of our movement have no credibilty, then let's access this data for ourselves, ok? Any of us can go to http://www.ntsb.gov and request this via FOIA.

Does the Black Box data contradict the official story? YES or NO.

Richard, I agree with your original review that the evidence they have uncovered and compiled deserves serious attention, but I understand your caution in associating AE911Truth with aspects of the truth movement other than controlled demolition of the three towers. There is no need for anybody on your team to dilute your message with distracting side arguments, including any opinion whatsoever about what happened or did not happen at the Pentagon and in Shanksville. AE911Truth is too important to the 911 Truth movement to take chances on jeopardizing the integrity and legitimacy of the evidence you have compiled and the people that represent the organization.

Congratulations on all the headway you made down under! Can't wait to hear what happens in Japan! Enjoy your trip.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

I think you are smart, as founder of ae911truth, to not support conclusions w/r to another aspect of 9/11 which is not in your area of architectural expertise. And indeed, ae911truth should not have an official position on the Pentagon, other than that serious questions need to be answered and that a new investigation is warranted. And you knocked it out of the park on the CBC show re the WTC when you refused to speculate.

Of course, you never stated in your original statement in July that you supported any one particular conclusion --- just that you felt that the research done by CIT was in depth and compelling, and warranted attention. In fact this was true of all the endorsements. Many of us in the movement have heartily promoted various films (the most famous being the 2nd edition of Loose Change, still the most ever popular of all 911 docos) even if we didn't agree with each and every claim in the film, i.e. missile at Pentagon, flight 93 landing in Cleveland, gold bars in the WTC basement, etc. I think in the end LC2E did far more good than any possible harm. Over time the same will prove to be the case with NSA, despite the contention here at blogger on the subject.

Me personally: I DO support the flyover conclusion, until such time that new evidence would come out and make me revise my opinion. I don't mind taking heat for it either, so you don't have to. ;-)

Cheers,

Adam

I think there is merit in adopting Frank Legge's precautionary principle until it's clearer what happened at the Pentagon. I also think people should be wary of any researchers that respond to polite and reasoned criticism with a stream of invective.

1- Hani flew a jumbo jet anywhere and especially into the Pentagon
2-the fab five frames if genuine show a jumbo jet hitting the Pentagon

Flyover, Flyaway, the only flies I believe in are the ones landing on the crap of the official story.

Official response from CIT

Richard Gage met me personally in June of 2009 when we had a detailed discussion regarding the Pentagon attack and he agreed to view National Security Alert which was our brand new video presentation at the time. A couple of weeks later (after viewing the presentation in full) he contacted me to say he was impressed enough to give us a blurb of support, and did, but soon after contacted me again to say that certain members of his board of directors were upset with this and that he would need to alter the endorsement.

Our press release went out at the end of July announcing a significant amount of endorsements for National Security Alert including the version from Richard Gage that had been fully vetted by his board of directors. Shortly after the press release went out I received a call from Gage that he attributed to escalating pressure from upset individuals trying to convince him to fully retract his statement of support for our work.

To his credit he had the courtesy to personally call me to talk about these concerns before acting on them. After over an hour of discussion on the phone about the evidence and our "methods" he told me that his concerns had been lifted so he would not retract and that he was looking forward to seeing me in New York for the 9/11 anniversary since we were both presenting at the "We Demand Transparency" conference where we could talk further.

We did in fact have the opportunity to talk in great detail in September and he assured me that he was still supportive of our efforts even though he was still receiving a significant amount of pressure from a select group of individuals. Namely, Justin Keogh who controls 9/11 Blogger and Michael Wolsey who has been on a public rampage since the release of National Security Alert in an attempt to personally discredit us with baseless accusations of "disinfo".

During this 2nd personal meeting on the weekend of the 8th anniversary in New York Richard Gage not only pledged continued support but also agreed to contact me with any concerns that might arise in the future.

Now, almost 3 months after the anniversary and almost 5 months after he first provided his statement of support Gage has issued a "clarification" without being specific as to what prompted this and without having contacted me to discuss his concerns as promised.

Quote:
Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Original Review:
The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.

Richard has not retracted his statement in support of our efforts. He has merely demonstrated that he has been effectively spun away from understanding the simple non-controversial scientific fact that a plane approaching on the north side of the former Citgo gas station can not hit the light poles or the building and that he has potentially been influenced by misrepresentations of our alleged "methods".

While we're sorry that he has given in to the admitted pressure to issue this "clarification" it does not change the implications of the information or the fact that Richard Gage has stood by his statement that the evidence presented in National Security Alert is "long overdue, but worth waiting for" and that it "deserves serious attention". It also does not diminish the unprecedented amount of public support we have received from other respected and accomplished researchers, pilots, journalists, activists, and concerned citizens, including countless who are not even listed on that page.

We continue to support the work of Richard Gage and his dedication to exposing the 9/11 deception. We respect his decision to stay focused on the collapse of the three World Trade Center towers while deferring research of the Pentagon attack to others. We appreciate his continued support of our efforts as well.

Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
CIT

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Let's see some backbone, Richard. The north of Citgo flight path is 100% incompatible with the damage to the Pentagon, which requires an arrow straight path south of Citgo, through 5 lightpoles, and through the building, to the punch out in the C ring. You don't need any special qualificiations to understand that, just ordinary human common sense.

Why is Richard backpedaling, issuing a clarification about flyover when his initial statement never mentioned flyover? All this new statement tells me is that Gage is not the fighter for truth that I had believed him to be.

Also disappointing to see how many truthers cannot think for themselves, and simply hop on the "bash CIT" bandwagon. Of course the perps want the most incriminating evidence -- bombs at the Pentagon -- to be deep sixed. But how about the rest of you?

Sounds like most of you don't understand CIT's evidence or haven't taken the time to watch NSA. Here's an easy way to get up to speed: the most-ever visited page on my blog is my article from April about CIT. Lots of maps and photos help you understand why I am so sure that no plane hit the Pentagon.